Vagabond of Letters, DLitt’s review of The History of White People > Likes and Comments
26 likes · Like
Um, white people have been writing the histories of black people for literally hundreds of years. And it's been racist as fuck that whole time.
Only Whites are Faustian and ethnomasochist enough to care about the histories of other peoples in themselves.
Aww, did this book hurt your white feelings, lil buddy? You should check out Ijeoma Oluo’s new book, “Mediocre.” I think it might be about you!
Mediocre > traitor.
You seem to have misgrapsed the central thesis of Painter's book - that is, that "whiteness" refers not to the arbitrary lightness of skin, but to an idea. That is, the idea of "whitness" as signaling certain historical and cultural codes to justify some kind of supposed superiority over those deemed "non-white". Thus it is not, as you imply, directed at people for their skin tone, nor is she saying it is necessarily perpetuated by all those with such arbitrary light skin (though it can be by many sometimes unconsciously).
To address some of the fallacies in your review, in the interest of coming to a better understanding:
You say, 'Imagine a White author writing 'The History of Black People', and you have the inverse of this book, if he were an ill-informed racist [...] Not even just American blacks, but all blacks all over the world! The very attempt would be considered racist, and would in truth be terrible ethnography: that hypothetical author would examine American blacks (under the delusion that race is purely a social construct) and then use his 'findings' to condemn East Africans, West Africans, !Kung, Xhosa, Kalahari bushmen, and Aborigines'.
I agree, it would be those things. But that's not what Painter is arguing in inverse.
As stated above, Painter is referring to an *idea*, one for which she traces the genealogy back to ancient Greek civilisation, through to its appropriation by the colonial empires and its articulation and development in Scientific Racism (that is, the notion that human beings have different origins, corresponding generally to superficial physical features, according to which they can be hierarchised, from which is justified their domination and exploitation by those considered "superior" or higher advanced). Now, Painter may be criticised for not adequately articulating this, that's fine. But that's not what you've argued.
And the above falls down in two ways anyway: firstly, human beings can be traced back to a single common ancestor living approximately half a million years ago (forgive me if that number is wrong, I don't have it in front of me - but my source is Oppenheimer's "Out of Africa"); and secondly, the superficial difference that can be readily observed between humans today (for example, lighter and darker skin) we know are derived from environmental factors, and do not correspond to any competitive advantage in the Spencerian sense.
Secondly, you deride "social constructionist nonsense" but (ad hominem aside) you ignore the extent to which so-called "race" is socially constructed. As alluded to above, the notion that light skin or ancestral origin correspond to any kind of superiority has absolutely no scientific basis. The idea that such a taxonomy - white, black, Anglo-Saxon, Western, etc. (in the sense it is commonly used in the texts Painter discusses) has any kind of primordial basis is just plain wrong, not to mention irrational and illogical.
That is the very argument being made here: that the notion it does is the result of a deliberate ideological campaign between (roughly) the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries used to justify the domination and exploitation of parts of the globe (chief among them, the continent of Africa) by the European colonial empires.
And, obviously, 'racist diatribe against White folk brimming with hatred for Western civilization and its accomplishments' is just ad hominem that doesn't really further discussion here. Again, let's not pretend "Western civilization" is a geographical marker, it perpetuates an idea of a unified civilisation (despite the fact the notion of a "Western world" has *never* 1. been consensually territorially defined and 2. constituted a singular administered entity).
I hope I have articulated that coherently.
Audible has this available on one of its sales right now, so I came over to GR to look at some reviews. Yours is full of such obviously racist misrepresentations that you've convinced me to buy the book and check it out for myself. Thanks!
edit: Oh, and C, thanks for your thoughtful counter-commentary!
The amount of white narratives around Black identity, and this is your comment. Haha.
Well it looks like you might just be a modern day Gary Cooper in “ High Noon”. I’ll go out there and face Frank Miller with you. You aren’t alone. I also have experienced racism for being a heterosexual, white, southern male. I just try to deal with people on an individual basis, I think some people and groups would just up and die if they didn’t have another group of people to bully. It’s pretty ironic, that they are in fact just as bad as the people they claim to be against. Racism is racism, even if it’s against us white folks.
@James Brock oh, honey. you are not experiencing racism for being heterosexual. maybe if you actually had problems in your life you would know what words mean.
We all exist at the end of history, not in some sort of ongoing present. Therefore, no it is NOT the same for a white person to write a book called The History of Black People. For one thing Painter is an American, so her story leads to the United States. In the United States it is simply undeniable that white people have done evil things and exploited people they decide are not white. I am part Italian-American. My grandfather was not white when he was born, but he was when he died. This book isn't about black vs. white. Painter spends most of the book writing about other ethnicities that are now considered white, not about "black" people. To paint this as a black vs. white virtue-focused story is to entirely misconstrue the book.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jennie
(new)
Sep 12, 2020 10:58AM
Um, white people have been writing the histories of black people for literally hundreds of years. And it's been racist as fuck that whole time.
reply
|
flag
Only Whites are Faustian and ethnomasochist enough to care about the histories of other peoples in themselves.
Aww, did this book hurt your white feelings, lil buddy? You should check out Ijeoma Oluo’s new book, “Mediocre.” I think it might be about you!
Mediocre > traitor.
You seem to have misgrapsed the central thesis of Painter's book - that is, that "whiteness" refers not to the arbitrary lightness of skin, but to an idea. That is, the idea of "whitness" as signaling certain historical and cultural codes to justify some kind of supposed superiority over those deemed "non-white". Thus it is not, as you imply, directed at people for their skin tone, nor is she saying it is necessarily perpetuated by all those with such arbitrary light skin (though it can be by many sometimes unconsciously).To address some of the fallacies in your review, in the interest of coming to a better understanding:
You say, 'Imagine a White author writing 'The History of Black People', and you have the inverse of this book, if he were an ill-informed racist [...] Not even just American blacks, but all blacks all over the world! The very attempt would be considered racist, and would in truth be terrible ethnography: that hypothetical author would examine American blacks (under the delusion that race is purely a social construct) and then use his 'findings' to condemn East Africans, West Africans, !Kung, Xhosa, Kalahari bushmen, and Aborigines'.
I agree, it would be those things. But that's not what Painter is arguing in inverse.
As stated above, Painter is referring to an *idea*, one for which she traces the genealogy back to ancient Greek civilisation, through to its appropriation by the colonial empires and its articulation and development in Scientific Racism (that is, the notion that human beings have different origins, corresponding generally to superficial physical features, according to which they can be hierarchised, from which is justified their domination and exploitation by those considered "superior" or higher advanced). Now, Painter may be criticised for not adequately articulating this, that's fine. But that's not what you've argued.
And the above falls down in two ways anyway: firstly, human beings can be traced back to a single common ancestor living approximately half a million years ago (forgive me if that number is wrong, I don't have it in front of me - but my source is Oppenheimer's "Out of Africa"); and secondly, the superficial difference that can be readily observed between humans today (for example, lighter and darker skin) we know are derived from environmental factors, and do not correspond to any competitive advantage in the Spencerian sense.
Secondly, you deride "social constructionist nonsense" but (ad hominem aside) you ignore the extent to which so-called "race" is socially constructed. As alluded to above, the notion that light skin or ancestral origin correspond to any kind of superiority has absolutely no scientific basis. The idea that such a taxonomy - white, black, Anglo-Saxon, Western, etc. (in the sense it is commonly used in the texts Painter discusses) has any kind of primordial basis is just plain wrong, not to mention irrational and illogical.
That is the very argument being made here: that the notion it does is the result of a deliberate ideological campaign between (roughly) the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries used to justify the domination and exploitation of parts of the globe (chief among them, the continent of Africa) by the European colonial empires.
And, obviously, 'racist diatribe against White folk brimming with hatred for Western civilization and its accomplishments' is just ad hominem that doesn't really further discussion here. Again, let's not pretend "Western civilization" is a geographical marker, it perpetuates an idea of a unified civilisation (despite the fact the notion of a "Western world" has *never* 1. been consensually territorially defined and 2. constituted a singular administered entity).
I hope I have articulated that coherently.
Audible has this available on one of its sales right now, so I came over to GR to look at some reviews. Yours is full of such obviously racist misrepresentations that you've convinced me to buy the book and check it out for myself. Thanks!edit: Oh, and C, thanks for your thoughtful counter-commentary!
The amount of white narratives around Black identity, and this is your comment. Haha.
Well it looks like you might just be a modern day Gary Cooper in “ High Noon”. I’ll go out there and face Frank Miller with you. You aren’t alone. I also have experienced racism for being a heterosexual, white, southern male. I just try to deal with people on an individual basis, I think some people and groups would just up and die if they didn’t have another group of people to bully. It’s pretty ironic, that they are in fact just as bad as the people they claim to be against. Racism is racism, even if it’s against us white folks.
@James Brock oh, honey. you are not experiencing racism for being heterosexual. maybe if you actually had problems in your life you would know what words mean.
We all exist at the end of history, not in some sort of ongoing present. Therefore, no it is NOT the same for a white person to write a book called The History of Black People. For one thing Painter is an American, so her story leads to the United States. In the United States it is simply undeniable that white people have done evil things and exploited people they decide are not white. I am part Italian-American. My grandfather was not white when he was born, but he was when he died. This book isn't about black vs. white. Painter spends most of the book writing about other ethnicities that are now considered white, not about "black" people. To paint this as a black vs. white virtue-focused story is to entirely misconstrue the book.